It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if children could sue their parents for negligence and malpractice?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
It would have at least one huge benefit, it would make people more responsible about having children.


The only people who would benefit would be the lawyers. So, personally, I'm all for it. I could do with a new car, and maybe a few extra holidays every year.




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I would love to hear the legal argument on how you would have been better off unborn then in a middle class family.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

i'm gonna tell ya, my parents were dirt poor also, as well many people they knew. when i and my brothers were born we had very little as far as material possessions. but we did have plenty of food to eat( home cooked at night), clothes to wear, (although might not have been the name brands, or the trendy ones of the time), toys to play with( may not have been all the ones that were shown on tv or that were all the rage that every child wanted), when we were sick and it was more than just a bug or minor cold, we went to the doctor, we went to the dentist at least twice a year. all this while my father worked and mother stayed home, she was there when we got up and went to school, there when we got home, had snacks, ( home made or fruit, not junk food). my father came in the house in the evenings any where from 5 to 7 from the farm, and we would have diner. He started work on the farm were he become VP in charge of production after being there almost all of his working life, when he was 15. he left twice to work with his father and then a road construction company in Alabama, but moved back to Florida and went back to the farm at 19, rented the house we lived in for 11 years from the owners of the farm. he saved every spare nickel he had to buy land from the owners next to the farm, built the house we finished growing up in 1974. my mother didn't start work until i was 13 and my middle brother was 9, and my youngest brother( actually he was my cousin they took in to raise before the house was built) was 6.

being poor is not being negligent. being negligent is not doing the things that you know that should be done and taken care of. you can be poor and take care of your business, there are sources for people that can be utilized to do these things. might not be fancy, might be embarrassing, might be hard, but they are there. i can't list all the times that i had to make do, was embarrassed, mad at my folks for the way things were.

but you know what, those first 17 years of my life were the best, and how i wish that i could have them back.



edit on 13-1-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


Then, it should be allowed for parents to sue their children for an assortment of equally good reasons. I'm reminded of an old movie, The Bad Seed.

I think your suggested argument is typical of the younger generations today. They want to blame somebody other than themselves for their troubles and tribulations.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
When my parents had me they were dirt poor with no good reason to believe they would ever come out of that situation. Was it negligent for them to have a child in that situation? Absolutely. Was it wrong to bring another person into that situation? Absolutely.

I don't think "being poor" is necessarily a reason for not bringing a child into the world. I'm sure there are cases of children of poor families who are loved, cherished, and shown human respect by their parents more than children of rich families.

Other than "being poor", what emotional or moral crimes do you feel your parents committed against you?

By the way, your argument seems to me to be headed toward "poor people should be banned from having children".


edit on 1/13/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

It would have at least one huge benefit, it would make people more responsible about having children.


No, it would create a nanny state that oversees every aspect of everyone's life.

Yes, sometimes parents really screw up, but that's no excuse for continuing an effed-up existence as an adult.

Personal responsibility, here--it's not always mommy and daddy's fault when their children turn out to be idiots.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Athetos
So perhaps you should have been aborted instead of being born into poverty? Case closed no lawsuit because no child.


Perhaps you should just be happy to be alive.


a reply to: Profusion



money are not everything. You understand it outside USA in most cases. Abortion is not the answer, but the responsible parenthood needs responsible planning as well, without using any abortive practices, imo. The kid is not raised by simply providing for food and money for school.

Even the animals are raised with enough food and care because their owners have good use of them. People are more than that. Supposedly, people have to be above the animal level of understanding the life. Many moved beyond, but many didn't.

Even when pretending religious practices. In some cases involving religion instead of psychology of chidlren's age, makes the things worse. Religious education is something very good, if not at the expense of the rest.

And, if someone just cannot care enough for a child or children, why not to ask relatives to take care of it? Sure there are such who would love to have a child, who cannot have their own or who want one more.

The idea the child belongs to parents physically, emotionally, etc, is wrong. Of course it is dependent, subordinated, and should learn to obey...but to what degree? Not to the Army subordination, I guess.

That process ends at the age of 18 in USA but it ends in practical terms at the age of 15-16 when the kid is grown up enough to live his/her own lifestyle. Especially if he/she starts making own money.

In contrast, in many EU countries the traditions are still alive, to let the grown up kids to live with their parents as long as they want to, that sometimes goes long years after their marriage. Of course you have a completely different psychic in first place where the older ones live together with younger ones and enrich each other, help each other, in one or nearby large enough house. Not the room space alone but the space in heart is what determines those relations.

That is not seen very often in the West esp America where it seems everyone individually have boarded some kind of a life-train of no return...to where? They can't answer going to where. They just want to move away from their parents, from their past, from themselves...as thanksgiving for years cares, but also years of ill understood parenthood that pays a very hard price, much sooner than expected.

Parents must be much more responsible and realize they are entitled to teach individual SOULS to live better, even before providing food and clothes and talk 90% at home for money matters.

May be I am wrong for many of you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join